Author
Topic: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake (Read 57193 times)

for me personally i find the 5D and 16-35 small enough and light enough, I just dont see any upside from an f2.8 prime. if its only f2.8 i'd rather the flexability of the zoom. I could possibly see the use of this lens for shooting infrared for me since the 16-35 and the 50 f1.4 both produce the hot spot problems but it would have to significantly outperform the 50 f1.8 when stopped down

Yep I'm inclined to agree on the 30mm argument, but not EF-S. Could be the 40mm is the first of a small pancake parlour of Canon glass.

PW

Well EF-S would be the only way a 30mm f/2.8 gets released. Seeing as it would be crazy for Canon to release an EF 30mm f/2.8 non-IS lens for <$200 just weeks after releasing an EF 28mm f/2.8 IS for like $7-800. Nobody would buy the IS version.

PHYSICA

Lot of people questioning the focal length and speed (myself included) but after thinking about this a little more, at the possible price of sub 200, you can't really go wrong.

yes , it must have some payload……wanna a small pancake lens, either one of them must be not promising………closest focusing dist., F-Stop, Cost………$200 for a very tiny , pocketable lens , I think F-Stop's problem is not really big deal………for those which really concern about the F-Stop , please go for the (reletively) bulky L lens of 50.2 and forget this lens please.

The only concern is..... is the closest focusing distance will be too far which is similar with the situation of G1X........I think we'll know the answer while the full spec. announced…

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

What is up with all these 2.8 primes? I don't care how small this lens is, it won't make my 5D any smaller. F2.8 is a huge waste of money. I want a 24mm 1.8(or 1.4/1.2!) and I might be interested in a similarly fast 28 or 35mm, but I have absolutely no use for a 2.8 aperture lens at these focal lengths. I'd much rather just save my money for the 24-70. Why can't Canon make an updated affordable(under 800 dollars) prime that is faster than 2.8? These new 24 and 28mm 2.8's are almost offensively priced at around 700-800 dollars, and this lens is cool, but just not cool enough.If I want something smaller i'll buy a 4/3.

Tainted

I'll almost certainly be selling my voigtlander 40mm pancake to buy one of these. I'll lose a stop of light gathering, but will make it up with autofocus and an even smaller footprint. The AF is kind of key for 5D Mark III owners since we can't use an Eg-S focusing screen like we could on the Mark II. Sure you can use focus confirmation still with the Ultron, but given the new precision of the 5D3 focusing, count me in for this puppy!

Also, I'm surprised by people's lack of enthusiasm for this lens. The 40mm focal length on FF makes for an absolutely perfect normal walkaround lens. and the size can help turn a 5D into a stealth street shooting machine (especially when combined with silent shutter and a little gaffer tape over the logos). You'll be able to slip your 5D into a jacket pocket, amazing!

If it's truly under $200 (I'm skeptical), it's an absolute no brainer.

Logged

PHYSICA

What is up with all these 2.8 primes? I don't care how small this lens is, it won't make my 5D any smaller. F2.8 is a huge waste of money. I want a 24mm 1.8(or 1.4/1.2!) and I might be interested in a similarly fast 28 or 35mm, but I have absolutely no use for a 2.8 aperture lens at these focal lengths. I'd much rather just save my money for the 24-70. Why can't Canon make an updated affordable(under 800 dollars) prime that is faster than 2.8? These new 24 and 28mm 2.8's are almost offensively priced at around 700-800 dollars, and this lens is cool, but just not cool enough.If I want something smaller i'll buy a 4/3.

if you wanna a fast 24mm prime , please go for the 24L. I don't think canon will made a 24 F1.8 which is just a little bit slower but will be cheap a lot. Also I don't think canon will made a small prime lens which is small enough , fast enough and cheap enough.

for those thich is concern the size , this lens is a very good lens. i had consider the ULTRON 40mm to be my walk around lens because of it's compact tiny size. but sometime , i need the AF ability as i need to take some shot stealthly and without holding the camera to the normal position. so finally i consider the 35 F2 to be my walk around lens during my working time(I'm not a photo journalist....) I unable to bring too much gear during my works time. my 7D + 35 F2 is just marginally acceptable for me..... This lens will be very nice for me to minimize the load for me

So , for those concern the F-Stop , please forgive this lens and go for the L , faster lens with higher price and bulkier size.........

Logged

markd61

I guess not too many here remember the spate of pancake lenses that came out in the early 80's. Minolta and Pentax both brought out 45mm lenses that allowed them to offer extremely compact packages in 35mm SLRs.

I never owned the Minolta though I had it on my list (I really loved my 35).

As far as this lens goes, it is a very smart move by Canon in that it allows DSLR owners to carry a much more compact kit on their walking about forays, it affords newbies low cost entree into the land of the oft vaunted prime lens, and gives Canon breathing room while they finish up their mirrorless offering.

I see at as a very attractive lens to add to my old 5D that makes it a lot more compact. Silent AF coupled with contrasty sharp IQ seems like a great formula. One more stop might be useful in some instances but high ISO is so good that 2.8 is scarcely a penalty. The price also reflects this modest design.

All in all a great potential all-rounder as opposed to some hyper-speed diva lens that weighs a ton, costs a bunch and makes you happy only at max apertures.

I looks like a nice lens, but I can't see spending $200 to shave off an inch or less of my 50mm 1.8, and to lose a stop and a half? The 40mm would be a nicer length for a cropped sensor, but personally, I'd take better light gathering. The 50 1.8 is also a good performer especially at f2 - 2.2 (which is still a whole stop advantage...).

The only things that would make me really interested are: sub-$200 is really in the $150 range, and this thing is sharp at 2.8 and focuses quickly. It doesn't need to be 70-200 quick, just a decent bit faster than my 50 1.8. If it had USM, I'd be all over it. As it is, the metal mount is a definite bonus over my nifty fifty. I guess this also depends on the price of the current 50, because I got mine at a low point, for under $100, and now they can be in the $130 range, so difference isn't as big.

When you think about it, this on a 5D3 is an awesome travel / street combo.

It's tiny, I can have this attached to my backup camera instead of the socket cover and ditch the 50 1.2 (Which I rarely use but carry anyway). I could even use the double r strap now to carry two bodies. One with the 70-200 on and the 40mm 2.8 on the other. 40mm is better than 50mm too.